As a colleague pointed out, it may be little wonder that Republican politicians distrust academic “studies,” whether about the effects of taxes on growth or carbon on the climate.The story talks about the reasons for current faculty’s opinions. But that misses the issue, which is how faculty are hired. Certain Opinions need not apply.

I’m actually a little surprised. I would judge Princeton the most conservative of all Ivy League political science departments (albeit that’s a little like being “tall for a dwarf”). I know of at least five professors whom I would call conservative, libertarian, or right-leaning-moderate. That’s double the number I can say of any other Ivy League political science department.

As an alum, that ratio ashames, but does not surprise me. Still, judged next to its peers, Princeton may be called politically moderate (notwithstanding faculty like Krugman, Singer, and West). Lets focus the fire on the apostates-on-the-Quinnipiac. Oh wait, that will never happen because Ricochet’s ruling class is dominated by Yalies. :P

Right, this represents a small fraction of the faculty and staff at Princeton (~2,300). It may be representative of the vocal leftists vs the silent majority (not to imply that the majority aren’t on the left). Either way, there is nothing surprising to the revelation that professors in sociology, philosophy and political science departments lean to the left. I thought that was part of the job description in those departments? (I have never met one that wasn’t)

I had the same equally sarcastic thought. But I really wonder what reasoning Princeton faculty use to come to prefer Obama. Surely they are not, actually, stupid. Surely a good percentage of them should be as bright as the custodian who contributed to Romney?

Or they just donate at levels like our current Vice-President, which is to say, barely at all.

Helping your fellow man is apparently only done through higher taxation levels, not direct donation. Which again reinforces my assumption that colleges are populated (largely) by people not living in the same world as you and I.

I love the quote in the Princetonian article from a psychology professor who claims “there is even research that the speeches of liberal politicians are more cognitively complex.” She must have “Romnesia.”

Howellis: I love the quote in the Princetonian article from a psychology professor who claims “there is even research that the speeches of liberal politicians are more cognitively complex.” She must have “Romnesia.”

I have a few thoughts on this:

She should talk to a Communications Studies professor about why good political speeches are less “cognitively complex”.

It is entirely possible that I am the defective agent here. There is something so obvious that I am missing the point. It seems to fly in the face of rationality to assume that all these intelligent people are merely misled. Maybe I am meant to learn to live with that gnawing feeling in my gut while immersing in liberal thought.

Howellis: I love the quote in the Princetonian article from a psychology professor who claims “there is even research that the speeches of liberal politicians are more cognitively complex.” She must have “Romnesia.”

I have a few thoughts on this: · 1 hour ago

She should talk to a Communications Studies professor about why good political speeches are less “cognitively complex”.

“I couldn’t understand a single thing he was saying. He’s so deep!”

I don’t know much about the communications aspects of political speechifying (although I suspect you are right), but I do know that liberal political and economic ideas tend to be shallow, generally ignoring unintended consequences, and worshipful of good intentions rather than outcomes. Similarly, we get a Paul Krugman arguing that the 9/11/2001 attacks would be good for the economy (broken windows fallacy).